BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

1 result for “transfer pricing”+ Section 163clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai146Delhi122Chennai83Hyderabad72Jaipur38Bangalore31Chandigarh29Kolkata21Raipur19Lucknow17Nagpur13Surat11Pune10Ahmedabad10Rajkot7Patna5Varanasi5Indore4Allahabad3Cuttack2Visakhapatnam1Cochin1Dehradun1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 14A3Section 143(3)2

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU vs. THE ANDHRA SUGARS LIMITED, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 380/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019 (धनिाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1, Tanuku. Eluru. Pan: Aaact6357Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 140/Viz/2019 [आयक अपील सं. से उत्पन्न / Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019(A.Y. 2012-13)] M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Tanuku. Income Tax, Circle-1, Pan: Aaact6357Q Eluru. अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

163/- considering it as capital expenditure and not allowable as revenue expenditure. He therefore pleaded that since the Ld. AO has analyzed the expenditure item by item, there is no ambiguity in considering the expenditure as capital expenditure and hence pleaded that the order of the Ld. AO be upheld. 16. Per contra, the Ld. AR submitted that